1. Must secure borders. It must be open to trade and lawful immigration and shut to illegals, drug dealers and terrorists. By the end of 2008, border patrol officers will increase by 6,000. Will install high tech fences, motion censors, etc. along the borders.

Immediate steps: Use the National Guard, up to 6,000 guard members will be deployed to the southern borders. They will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities. For one year. We will not militarize our borders.

Comment: Did Bush just make the second most unpopular proposal of his presidency, after the War in Iraq? I think so. This will cause outrage among many different groups, including those who have previously supported him.

Increase funding to state and federal officials.

Every illegal immigrant caught crossing the border from this point on must be sent home. Most are sent home in 24 hours. It's not as easy to send those from other countries home. Not enough detention space. Most get bond pending court date and then don't show up. Catch and release will end. He proposes:

More detention beds.
Cut average deportation time.
Foreign governments must take back its citizens.

Comment: We have to get off the train off the enforcement track. We cannot jail ourselves out of our perceived immigration problem.

2. Temporary worker problem.

Legal path for workers. But every worker would have to return home after their temporary period before getting citizenship.

Comment: Unacceptable. We cannot allow families to be broken up by sending some back home to wait for a legal opportunity to return.

Comment: Just like all Bush's security proposals. They don't make us safer, only less free.

4. No automatic path to citizenship for those already here. He opposes amnesty. His program is not amnesty. But it's not fair to root up all these people. Middle ground: Differentiate by time they have been in this country. There will be a penalty for breaking law, the immigrants will have to pay taxes, learn English, hold job for certain number years and wait in line behind those who follow the rules.

Comment: Learn English to get citizenship? Completely off the wall.

5. English has to be important. And? I didn't get the proposal part of this section of his speech.

My conclusion: This plan will outrage everyone, and the Senate will probably cave in and give him what he wants. Your compromising government in action.

Better no immigration reform bill than a bad one. Bush's proposal stinks. You don't have to be an immigrant to weigh in with your Senators and demand that the final bill must be humane and provide equality and a clear path to citizenship. As I've said before, the reforms we need are ones which will:

* Provide the opportunity for undocumented immigrants to legalize their status
* Eliminate criminal sanctions for immigration violations
* Expand avenues for legal immigration and support family reunification
* Provide access and options for permanent residency and citizenship
* Strengthen labor protections and their enforcement for all workers, both native and foreign born
* End the employer sanctions program
* End border and immigration enforcement abuses

Legalization should be immediate and without conditions. There should be no criminalization and no border walls. There must be protection of labor rights and civil liberties.

Remind your Senators that in November, 1 million new immigrant voters will remember their position on immigration reform when they go to the polls for the first time. Their votes will count.

[name calling deleted.]
If I only had a time machine so I could travel back to the 2000 election, stand on national television between Gore and Bush in the middle of the frivilous "character" debate and tell the world that in 2006, Bush would militarize our national borders and make all those without a green card felons to be rounded up and deported....
Yeah, I know. If I could do that, none of the *** greedy, self-serving Conservatives would have cared. They'd have applauded and Bush still would've won.

There's very little difference between Bush and the Dems on this issue. In fact, he supports the Senate's bi-partisan bill.
I have some comments on specific things from the speech here.
This is basically the same speech he's delivered many times before; only the NG part is different.

apologies, but that's how I felt about it. I work with people whose families could/will be affected - changed drastically - by this...and there's nothing I or anyone else can do except sit back, watch it happen, and listen to smug Conservatives cheer and laugh while families are torn apart.

I'm afraid these "reforms" are nothing of the sort. End employer sanctions? If nothing else, they should be toughened. Cut off the demand for illegal labor, and you dry up the supply. Not require would-be citizens to learn English? Goodness, no, Of course not; after all, all our laws are written and decided in English. Why should someone who has shown no inclination to obey the law learn what it actually says?
One does not have to be an American nationalist to appreciate that unchecked illegal immigration threatens to undermine the very character and genius of the American Experiment. It is not racist or xenophobic to ask those who would wish to become American to learn the language of the land. It is not racist or xenophobic to require everyone to obey the law. It is not racist or xenophobic to ensure the security of our own frontiers. The immigration debate illustrates that, for all the talk of globalization, ultimately the greatest loser is national sovereignty.
Perhaps Bush is doing it all wrong as he has done everything else wrong during his administration. But these so-called "reforms" suggested here are not much more than throwing the borders open to anyone who can get across. You would be better off suggesting that we return Texas, the Mexican Cession, and the Gadsden Purchase back to the political heirs of Santa Anna, and redraw the national frontier to culturally and geographically defendable frontiers.

TS - I don't think any families will be torn apart. But, if you insist that the children will deported along with the parents, remember that they have dual Mexician citzenship.
But again, that's not going to happen.

Illegal Immigrants can't fight in a war if they are not American Citizens. Residence Status only if the marry a american citizen. So then "Why" is Bush doing something about the Border Situation Now since it's only US Citizens/Americans that can be eligible to enlist and then sent of for slaughter in the illegimate war in Iraq..
Isn't it only poor people who fight the war for the rich. Would these same poor people fight for jobs that illegal immigrants have and then demand higher pay. Well then "Supply and Demand" Bush owns a farm and he is playing rancher who has more cattle then he knows what to do with.
Bush cannot invoke the draft. Plus enrollment is down in all armed forces as a matter of fact do a google search all the articles state that volunteering for any armed services has hit a new low.
There is always motive behind the need of a politician. This time Bush is outnumbered because it has gotten to a point of why make it easy on those who can't vote,can't fight,and in general have no regard for birth control. So Immigration Control will work domestically and Im 100 percent for the hard line control and no amnesty. If Bush can do one good thing i'd be happy. Just one thing, Immigration Control then I won't say anything bad about Bush.

I think the idea of getting rid of 10 million workers while the economy is booming is a brilliant idea.
And putting the National Guard on the border? Better there than Iraq.
The person who says the Republicans don't understand economics and national security better than the Democrats is an idiot.

Perhaps Bush is doing it all wrong as he has done everything else wrong during his administration.

I hope your post is serious, not satire, since you are clearly not a liberal-minded person. Your reaction is a very encouraging sign that Bush is alienating his natural conservative base. I can only hope that many more conservatives react as you have, so that we can all pull together to throw these irresponsible so-called Republicans out of office before they sell off the whole country to their crooked cronies.

Bush's "prime-time" babble tonight was a waste of bandwidth. His laundry list of bad ideas doesn't begin to address the problems motivating millions of people from Mexico to enter the US illegally. The only thing he did achieve tonight was to ensure an unrestricted supply of indentured cheap labor for the big money interests, and diminishing job opportunities in construction, hospitality and retail for unemployed working-class natives.
A better list of ideas would begin with:
1. Strict worksite enforcement through heavy fines and jail time for employers. Without employment, many illegals will self-deport. (Illegals who have "anchor babies" can either bring them, or make guardianship arrangements similar to those made by military parents prior to long deployment.)
2. Suspending so-called "free" trade activities that enrich multinational corporatists while impoverishing sectors of the Mexican economy.
3. Pressuring the corrupt Mexican oligarchs start investing in infrastructures that serve their citizens' economic interests.
4. Granting illegals who wish to immigrate legally the opportunity to "get in line" from their country of origin, just like those who play by the rules.

we have a new word in the vernacular; "decider"
it will become a synonym for;
fuhrer, caesar, il duce, stalin
wish that this fellow was working his ticket and it was more like a "blue collar communist" comedy special. blue collar george talks to the only ones dull enough to listen, he's speaking to the base.

Tampa Student claims that Bush wants to make felons of illegal immigrants. The fact is that the House Democrats voted against removing the felon provision fronm the House immigration bill. If you want to make partisan points, let's give credit and blame where it is due.

Dear God. Crooks and Liars caught the World Net Daily making explicit arguments that the US should use the example of Nazi Germany to expel illegal immigrants:

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Ethnic cleansing, who would have thought it would ever become a rallying point for the right wing agenda again?

Squeaky, I checked out that World Net Daily site. They also featured an ad for a TV program in which "15 experts debunk the bestselling novel" the Da Vinci Code! I guess tilting at windmills is a specialty of theirs.

JimakaPPJ, I think the idea behind guest worker status is to have workers come into the country and leave their families behind. That way, we get the benefit of the cheap labor without having to pay for the kids' education, the family's medical care, etc. It's a pretty repulsive concept, but it's what I've come to expect from this cynical administration.

Your reaction is a very encouraging sign that Bush is alienating his natural conservative base. I can only hope that many more conservatives react as you have, so that we can all pull together to throw these irresponsible so-called Republicans out of office before they sell off the whole country to their crooked cronies.

LOL, and install a democratic party that will do the same thing. No thanks. Bush's poll numbers may indicate dissatisfaction, but they do not indicate conservatives are ready to cross party lines. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Show me one significant policy the dems will change. You can't. Dems won't pull us out of Iraq. They can't change gas prices any more than republicans can, they won't do anything about immigration, illegal or otherwise, just like R's. They are two peas in a pod, and the only way you can tell them apart is determine which party the president belongs to, and the other party will obstruct to the detriment of the whole country. The funny thing to me is all of you who believe it would be different under a democrat.

Show me one significant policy the present administration is actually working on. (And "spying on their political enemies", "avoiding indictment", "looting the treasury", "lining the pockets of their business cronies", or "staying in power" don't count, in case you were going to pick those).

If you want to hijack the thread, have at it...
Show me one significant policy the dems will change.
Changing many policies just a little might save us from armageddon. Tax cuts for the rich? Funding AMTRAK? Slightly less fascist judges? Maybe a more equitable distribution of taxes? But to say that the Dems are no different than BUSH? That dog won't even get up in the morning.

This is what happens to elected officials who place the interests of the open border lobby and the big money cartel who exploit illegals over the concerns of citizens.
This is what happens when employer sanctions are strictly enforced.

Once again Bush has shown why Fred Barnes label "Rebel in Cheif" really is appropriate. Rather then pacify his base and shut down the boarders with no talk of amnesty and rather then leave them open and ignor the problem he's staked out a position that will make very few people happy.
Why? Because he thinks it's the right thing to do. Rather then admit like TL has that this is the best of a bad situation most would rather take pot shots and cry about Iraq, taxes etc...and all the other liberal talking points that have nothing to do with this issue. There is really no debate IMO about whether or not we should enforce the boarders. The debate is how and how much money we should spend to keep people out. Unfortunately both extremes from the marchers to the minutemen have staked out such ridiculous positions that any compromise will only make people mad.
To be an honest Bush critic is to admit that every once and a while he does something right. Unfortunately most on this site seem to blindly oppose Bush even when he gives them most of what they "claim" to believe in.

If the plan proposed last night was fully implemented, the net effect would be positive. Unfortunately to well-worn cliches reign true: talk is cheap and the devil is in the details.
The most important aspect of Bush's plan is the "tamper-resistant" immigrant worker card. In fact, I would love to see a national standard for driver's licenses and identification cards for all citizens that includes biometrics. Every time you get a job, require the employer to verify your citizenship status--and hold them financially responsible for any violations.
Using the NG to "protect" the border is not much more than a political stunt. I do think their presence will help, if only to free trained Border Patrol from doing administrative duties for the time being until the other facets of the plan can be ironed out and implemented.

The deeply troubling points of the speech to me...
- Unmanned drones flying over US soil. First the border, then they are flying over your house taking pictures. Very scary, very big brother-esque.
- Bio-metric ID cards...first "guest workers", then everybody else. Again, scary.
- The militarization of the border. Of course, Bush says it's not so...but he's been less than truthful before. Sending troops, National Guard or otherwise, to the border is militarizing the border, period.
On the bright side, he ruled out mass deportation. And he stressed living up to our legacy as a welcoming nation of immigrants. Probably just lip service, but it was nice to hear none the less.

Progressives have a blind spot when it comes to immigration. That's understandable. Compassion is virtuous. Even so, unmanaged migration will defeat any possibility to create a sustainable culture in this country. Uncontrolled growth not only means overtaxed schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, it simultaneously means destruction of wildlands, disappearing wilderness, drained water tables, and so much more. It means depressed wages and guaranteed exploitation of domestic and migrant workers. Uncontrolled population growth makes the U.S. the only industrialized power without the means to get its arms around these problems. Planned, managed migration can and must be accomplished.

did bush just make the second most unpopular decision of his presidency?
that is a very good question.
i think it may play out that the answer is "yes".
but the reason may have more to do with the invitation to ridicule that bush's proposal presents.
this political dosey-doe has all the earmarks of ad hocery and does not meet any of our needs as a country. (nor republican political needs)
ridicule -
the most deadly weapon in politics.

Man is a migratory animal and always has been. The average American moves every five years and for what? Better jobs, better homes, shorter commutes, or just 'cause they feel like moving.
You cannot ask man to deny his nature anymore than you can tell a dog not to be a dog or tell a snake it can no longer be a snake.
Primordial urges and actions cannot be stopped or controlled; the innate will out. Their choices however may be greatly limited by circumstances.
As several readers have commented, this comes down to a matter of employment. IF the government proposed and passed truly draconian penalties against employers of illegal aliens the problem would cease, and cease naturally and peacefully.
If a penalty was assessed against an employer of say, one million dollar fines for EACH illegal alien employed and say, five YEARS in prison, mandatory for a FIRST offense followed by TEN MILLION DOLLAR fines per illegal and TEN YEARS IN JAIL mandatory for a SECOND offense, with fines and jail time increasing exponentially for subsequent offenses, why, after the first conviction and the arrest of another offender, the illegal problem would disappear. No CEO or farmer watching a fellow CEO or farmer broken by fines and incarcerated for years would himself run the risk.
And I firmly believe that if anyone is to be punished it should NOT be innocent people doing what innocent people have done for all mankind's existence - migrate.
With draconian penalties in place and enforced, no employer will risk being broken and jailed so they won't hire illegals. If there are no jobs people will stay where they are - it's cheaper being broke in Mexico than being broke in America.
Why should people following their nature be so demonized and hated for simply doing what they can to improve their lives? Very unChristian.

Tampa Student claims that Bush wants to make felons of illegal immigrants. The fact is that the House Democrats voted against removing the felon provision fronm the House immigration bill. If you want to make partisan points, let's give credit and blame where it is due

If you had ever read anything I've written on this site for the past 3 years or so, you'd know that nothing I write is in defense of the actions of Congressional Democrats. Blind party partisanship is for sheep, like many of the lay Conservatives that post here. I haven't any love for Congressional Democrats, they are complicit in most of the outrages of the Bush Administration.
The point stands - this ethnocentric attitude towards poor immigrants trying to improve their short lives in the midst of our Corporation's Neoliberal oppression of 2nd and 3rd world nations is immoral, amongst most of the other acid (but not profane) things I wrote initially on this thread that were subsequently deleted.

this ethnocentric attitude towards poor immigrants trying to improve their short lives in the midst of our Corporation's Neoliberal oppression of 2nd and 3rd world nations is immoral,

Tampa, I could not agree with you more. Check out this recent article from Michael Ventura
In it he states,

It is worth examining what makes Mexican exploitation in the U.S. possible. "The income gap between the U.S. and Mexico is the widest of any two contiguous countries in the world" (Newsweek, quoted in The Week, April 14, p.14). No powerful nation welcomes a rival power on its border; it has been the United States' consistent policy to support powerful Mexican oligarchies that keep Mexico anything but a rival, and keep the Mexican people powerless. How powerless? Half of Mexico's population of 105 million live on less than $5 a day (CNN, Anderson Cooper 360ΒΊ, May 1). This insures a 52.5 million-person pool of cheap labor for both Mexican oligarchs and U.S. industries. What does this mean in real everyday terms for American citizens? If you buy a newly built home, or renovate your existing abode; if you eat American-grown fruit, vegetables, grain, diary, or meat; if you buy flowers for your significant other or to pretty up your rooms; if you eat out; if you sleep at good hotels; if you hire cleaning crews for your offices and schools - you are being subsidized by Mexican poverty. In this sense, poverty is Mexico's leading industry. Mexican poverty's "product," its "export" (our "import") of cheap labor, cuts costs to the average American significantly, every day, in billions of purchases.

Only one commentator I saw on May 1 hit the nail square. Nativio Lopez said, "Today's movement translated into voter power." Apart from the boycott, and separate from it, the theme of May 1 was, over and over: Register and vote. Hundreds of hand-painted signs: "MARCH TODAY - VOTE TOMORROW." Most estimates agree that at least 1.1 million people were in the streets - on a Monday! That is unprecedented in American history and demonstrates incredible enthusiasm and organization among Hispanics. And the entire point was: Vote. Given the enthusiasm, given the organization, it is not unreasonable to expect 60% or even 70% of eligible Hispanic voters at the polls next November. They won't be voting Republican. And if these people have reason to believe they've been cheated by electronic voting machines, it's a safe bet they will not meekly return home and content themselves with resentful e-mails; Hispanic-Americans will likely be in the streets, demanding honesty. Right now, if you're still interested in living in a democratic republic, the place to be is on their side.

Tampa: What country in the world would not react to 11 million illegal immigrants entering and demanding citizenship? THe USA has one of the most generous immigration policies in the world. Is it ethnocentric to believe in say, 1 million legal immigrants a year AND enforcement of our laws to prevent another million or so from entering?

Your argument at once ignores the economic realities of Neoliberalism (also known under the false label of "Free Trade) and the real prejudices of Social Conservatives that support Bush's immigration policy.
Neocons and other War Corporatists want to have it both ways. In their (your) view, Nationalism is only a valid concern for the United States; for any other country's efforts to maintain a highly nationalistic foreign policy is immediately demonized as "blocking free trade", "oppressing their people", or both (i.e. Venezuela). Our Corporations suck the material and labor resources of foreign nations and then sell the products and services to 1st World Consumers at 1st World Prices and retain the profits in their 1st World bank accounts. No benefit falls upon the client state -- their people are no better off than they otherwise would be and are often oppressed by corrupt leaders that are paid tributes to keep U.S. interests secure (i.e. Sadaam Hussein, circa 1982).
Second, as "Skeptical Man" says...

"...and redraw the national frontier to culturally and geographically defendable frontiers.

Culturally defendable frontiers indeed. The most rabid supporters of the militarization of our borders (false label = immigration reform) are first and foremost fearful of being overwhelmed by foreign culture. I've been to Texas, Arizona, and New York. They're not exactly melting pots. Quite the opposite. They're fencing one another out and grouping together in tight knit communities, often segregated by economic wealth that just so happens to fall along the lines of race.
No other nation has as many troops on foreign soil as the United States. No other nation has as much Private Ownership abroad as the United States. Those realities invalidate your argument that our nation has no greater moral obligation of generosity than other nations throughout the world (i.e. a sane, liberal immigration policy).

The most important aspect of Bush's plan is the "tamper-resistant" immigrant worker card. In fact, I would love to see a national standard for driver's licenses and identification cards for all citizens that includes biometrics
We have arrived.

Furrillo....
since it's only US Citizens/Americans that can be eligible to enlist and then sent of for slaughter in the illegimate war in Iraq..
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to "hijack" this thread and talk about the war! It only took 8 posts... congrats!
Squeaky....
Ethnic cleansing, who would have thought it would ever become a rallying point for the right wing agenda again?
Wanting to protect our borders is NOT ethnic cleansing...although I know you'd like it to be!
Not to worry...Mexico has threatened to sue us if we do such a dastardly thing. (how dare us!) I'm sure you're also on board with that too....yes? Too bad the Mexican Government doesn't do more to provide for their people than sue the US for not letting them all in.
You Go Dems!!!!
Bill Arnett....
Why should people following their nature be so demonized and hated for simply doing what they can to improve their lives?
Nobody 'hates' them... And nobody 'blames' them for trying to better themselves...just do it "legally"...why is that so much to ask???? Like it or not.... beleive it or not... THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!
Tampa....
this ethnocentric attitude towards poor immigrants trying to improve their short lives in the midst of our Corporation's Neoliberal oppression of 2nd and 3rd world nations is immoral,
So...what would you do.... let them all in? No restaints? No borders? No country? I'd like to hear your plan? And, why no "immoral" taunts against the Mexican government that not only lets this happen...but encourages it?
Peaches...
Given the enthusiasm, given the organization, it is not unreasonable to expect 60% or even 70% of eligible Hispanic voters at the polls next November. They won't be voting Republican.
Exactly why the Dems are pushing this issue so much..they want the votes!
Let me ask you.... Do you see a problem when "our" elected representatives are more concerned with the rights of "Illegals" than the citizens that elected them? How did this get so out of hand?

Peaches....
not talking about "illegals" coming to the polls, but "eligible hispanic voters."
Yes..I knew that. Besides...with "fake" IDs, who knows how many "illegals" will still be voting... all at the extreme glee of the Dems! The question still stands. Care to answer it?

Do you see a problem when "our" elected representatives are more concerned with the rights of "Illegals" than the citizens that elected them?

This would be a problem if it were true. Our elected representatives will always be most concerned with what will get them reelected. The only concern they will show for the rights of "illegals" will be due to the concern given them by the citizens who have voted for the representative in the past and who may vote for them in the future. Democrats are being handed an opportunity on a silver platter--the high turn out of eligible hispanic voters. The question is still open on whether or not they screw this opportunity up. Keep your fingers crossed, BB.